Menard posted an opinion and I don't think his initial post was rude at all. However, I can see how the "several members" comment and the post in appearing in "trouble tickets" sparked negative responses. Bottom line the avatar, although unpleasant to the eyes, doesn't really violate any TOS I'm aware of so unless Harlot changes it, all those offended will have to get used to it.

As for the insults they're not needed by anyone. Also, if there is a consensus to move this thread out from the "trouble ticket" board then perhaps we should. However, right now we should get this conversation under control. An opinion was expressed, rebuttals were given, Harlotbug has not responded, there's obviously nothing more to add to this other than more gasoline to the flames.

Agreed 100%. Actually I'm surprised Andrew hasn't killed it already.

I have been scarce lately, and will continue to be scarce, because I am in San Diego for 7 weeks of training. We do have some very good moderators, like Mark (Darksider).

HarlotBug's avatar is disgusting to me, but I've always just shrugged and passed on. I do understand why Menard feels the way he does, and he brought it up in a manner that did not, to me, come across as insulting. The biggest asset we have here is respecting the person on the other side of the debate. If not, there isn't going to be a debate - just a flame war or name calling, and there is very little chance anything productive will come of it all.

Let's have a debate, or talk about an issue. Flame wars and tossing insults is useless.

Just to try and lighten things up a bit: the only possible way that we could settle this is to publish a picture of my mouth without teeth (except the five that I have left, minus my false choppers) and that image should be enough to gross anyone and everyone out.

Logged

As time goes by, you will seeThat we're going to be free, you and meWe'll touch the skyCan you see in your mind's eye that we are oneWe're all the same and life is just a simple game.

I have to support Menard in this. The avatar is, after all, there to represent you to the others on the board. If it gives a bad impression, I think it's helpful to be informed of that. If I used a picture I thought was funny or interesting, but others on the board found it revolting or distracting to see in every thread I post in, I'd want to know. Sure, we like movies that gross us out, but that doesn't mean we want that imagery in our faces all the time. HarlotBug3 probably doesn't aim to offend, and might well be unaware that there's any problem. If the image is too much for some people to see scattered through threads on the board, and might even deter them from reading posts or engaging in discussion, that is useful to know, and saying so is a kinder and more constructive thing than quietly resenting it. Menard wasn't criticizing anyone personally, only pointing out that an image might be having an undesired effect.

If HarlotBug3 knows the image could be bothering people and still wants to use it, then fine and dandy. It isn't breaking any rules. But what Menard is doing is allowing him/her to make that choice. It's something a friend would do.

Granted, it could have been done privately, but what good is a private message? It looks like one guy has got a problem. By posting it in an open forum, Menard gives everyone a chance to express whether the avatar bothers them. Maybe the majority will agree with him, or maybe they're not bothered, or maybe they think someone's free expression is more important than their own discomfort. I think it's a good discussion for a community to have and could benefit us all.

What I do find out of line is that instead of having that useful discussion, the thread immediately became about Menard, and in a way that was dismissive and rude - something his original post was not.

As a society, we've gotten so focused on our right to express ourselves any way we want that we forget that the same right allows us to complain about the way others are expressing themselves. People who do are labeled either repressive nazis who want to control people or whiny pussies who need to lighten up. If complaining is done respectfully, I think it's a good thing.

Myself, I found the avatar hard to look at too. But I just adblocked the image and haven't seen it since. Still read HarlotBug3's posts, but without the photo. That's not a solution either, mind you. If people are electing not to display your avatar, it kind of negates the purpose of having it. Again, it's useful to know.

OK, without the flame wars there is a worthwhile discussion having here in my opinion. Not sure where it belongs. So since Andrew has given his implicit blessing (by not blasting the whole thing to oblivion) I'll continue.

First of all, it is completely pointless to argue matters of opinion. We've seen that in the "movies nobody likes" and "movies nobody hates" threads. (However, I do find those threads hilarious).

We have an avatar that grosses some people out. At the same time, there are other people (myself included) who are not bothered by it, who find it a lot milder than other imagery we watch for pleasure. In fact I think there are other avatars which have bothered me much more. In fact, it isn't even in the "a little bit gross" category for me. Whatever buttons it's pushing for some of you, I don't seem to have those buttons. It's just teeth.

That's not saying you're wrong. It would obviously be stupid for me to declare that you aren't grossed out. You know how you feel. But it would be equally stupid for you to tell me that I am grossed out, even if it's patently obvious to you that the image is gross. I'm sorry, it isn't. To me. And it is. To you.

The interesting discussion question to me is: what should be the policy on something like this? Several people have admitted they don't like the image. That now makes a total of something like 3-4 who have actually voiced a negative opinion. If 3 people out of 1900 don't like an avatar, should it be banned? Isn't that the road to the kind of political correctness that most sane people hate, like making a book unavailable to thousands because one person doesn't like something on page 243? How do we define "inappropriate image"? Is it based on numbers who don't like it, or something else?

OK, without the flame wars there is a worthwhile discussion having here in my opinion. Not sure where it belongs. So since Andrew has given his implicit blessing (by not blasting the whole thing to oblivion) I'll continue.

That's a double edged sword on your part. You have, yet again, made the implication that this is a worthless thread, but you shall save it by contributing to it.

Though egotistical and asinine, you did it well, so I'll give you credit for that part.

I'm not going through every single 'worthwhile' word of your thread saving contribution, so I'll cut out the first paragraph which was completely pointless.

We have an avatar that grosses some people out. At the same time, there are other people (myself included) who are not bothered by it, who find it a lot milder than other imagery we watch for pleasure. In fact I think there are other avatars which have bothered me much more. In fact, it isn't even in the "a little bit gross" category for me. Whatever buttons it's pushing for some of you, I don't seem to have those buttons. It's just teeth.

That's not saying you're wrong. It would obviously be stupid for me to declare that you aren't grossed out. You know how you feel. But it would be equally stupid for you to tell me that I am grossed out, even if it's patently obvious to you that the image is gross. I'm sorry, it isn't. To me. And it is. To you.

The interesting discussion question to me is: what should be the policy on something like this? Several people have admitted they don't like the image. That now makes a total of something like 3-4 who have actually voiced a negative opinion. If 3 people out of 1900 don't like an avatar, should it be banned? Isn't that the road to the kind of political correctness that most sane people hate, like making a book unavailable to thousands because one person doesn't like something on page 243? How do we define "inappropriate image"? Is it based on numbers who don't like it, or something else?

Even if your reply is loaded, for once in this thread you have contributed at least some discussion. Though, for the most part, your 'worthwhile thread saving contribution' was not needed.

Nothing in the original post (which I suggest you actually go back and read...for once) was about defining anything, voting on anything, or forcing anybody to do anything.

The original post was simply a complaint, and request to remove the avatar. The decision to remove, in my opinion (as I'm the one who started this thread) lies with HarlotBug3 and only HarlotBug3.

What happened beyond that was simply an embarrassment to this forum. Where a forum is about open discussion, what happened out of some of the first replies was simply insults and ridicule which contributed nothing to the discussion...except to set a precedent for others who may find something they want to communicate in an open forum and instead fear the backlash they might get.

To answer a few of your questions, though they have no bearing on the subject of this thread:

We don't decide whether something on page 243 of a book belongs or not...Andrew does (that is, of course, provided it's not piracy ).

We can, of course, provide comment and feedback on such a subject...provided someone would start a discussion in an environment of expected ridicule.

With regard to the number of members of the forum which you keep throwing out as though you are a proxy for everybody, you cannot expect much more than 10% of that number to be correct.

I cannot give you an exact number, percentage, or any kind of calculation to determine what the number of actual members would be; that would vary from forum to forum.

The number is over several years and includes spammers, people who posted a few times and never came back, people who registered and never posted or even never came back, banned members, and even a few deceased.

Anybody who does come back and post, whether regularly or on occasion, would essentially be considered an active member, and the active member count would be the only number close to correct. Perhaps Andrew could mod the script to display active members, but that would be asking a lot of him for a trivial piece of information which has hardly ever been used in a post that I can recall.

Several years ago, what happened in this thread would have never happened on this forum. If somebody had a complaint, it was an open discussion. It was not that we were all a loving, hugging, kissing bunch (ewww); we certainly weren't that. I can't exactly tell you what we were; mainly just a bunch of people who found a place they enjoyed and kept it that way.

As I said, what happened here was an embarrassment...unnecessary...and a damn poor example to be put before others.

I'm not setting any rules for anybody on here...that's not my place...heck, I'm just a phantom.

Do keep in mind that I am probably just a tad () more defensive of this forum and the members here than the average member. I've even told Andrew a time or two to pull his head out of his ass (and with that bad haircut...that must tickle ).

One or two here may even consider me to be an a$$hole.

I'm not going to give any reason as to why I am defensive of this forum and the members here...but just know what to expect from me.

Now that I have gotten the kindness out of my heart...comes the ass reaming:

Okay...not really...I just wanted to see if I could raise some blood pressures.

As for the initial insults and ridicule:

I fully expect CheezeDick to act the way he did. Hell...this is a man who not only thinks that Archie Bunker makes sense, but who has arguments with fenceposts...and loses.

Circus_Boy - You are lucky in the fact that I actually like you. You may have intended it as a joke...you may not...this was not the place for one. If you want to feel bigger by pushing me...feel free; just remember that I don't budge, and I do bite. Just watch out for yourself; you likely won't deserve what I do.

schmendrik - Perhaps I am being unfair to you, in some ways. Certainly not for pointing out what you did wrong with this thread, but for expecting more from you.

(no...there's no insult coming)

I fully expect, as I said, CheezeDick to act the way he does. Of course, he just made a stupid insult...while you persisted in carrying it out to the 'nth degree. Still, you can express yourself much better than he can (admittedly, so can a brick wall).

It seems a bother for you to express yourself in a thread you so obviously don't give a damn about other than to offer no contribution aside from ridicule and insults.

Maybe I am being unfair by expecting more from you, but being that you put so much effort into earning that...I'll consider you deserving of it.

Nice sales pitch, but that's all it was; the same argument, candy-coated with a cherry on top. I'll give you credit for putting the effort into that, but you should have put some effort into a consideration for anybody other than yourself and rather than suggesting that the only way a thread can have any importance is if you contribute to it.

If you want to contribute something more worthwhile, then do so. We've got the point that you do not consider the avatar to be offensive which is a contribution to the discussion at hand...or of what's left of it.

If you have nothing more than insults and ridicule to contribute to this or any other complaint anybody on the board makes, then kindly keep your dick out of it.

Now let's end this with a kiss...put some tongue behind that, too....mwhaaa

The interesting discussion question to me is: what should be the policy on something like this? Several people have admitted they don't like the image. That now makes a total of something like 3-4 who have actually voiced a negative opinion. If 3 people out of 1900 don't like an avatar, should it be banned? Isn't that the road to the kind of political correctness that most sane people hate, like making a book unavailable to thousands because one person doesn't like something on page 243? How do we define "inappropriate image"? Is it based on numbers who don't like it, or something else?

Please see the above rules of the forum. Being that this is a site where many horror films are reviewed, gross images are going to appear in both avatars and the reviews. Under the "safe for work" category, pornographic images are covered mainly. Hence why although yes its unpleasant, Harlotbug's avatar is not violating the current TOS. We can go around in circles discussing what is acceptable or not but thats how it stands, or at least how I see it anyhow. Menard brought it up as a open request and whether you agree or not with the avatar or how he brought it up, thats all it was.

Circus_Boy - You are lucky in the fact that I actually like you. You may have intended it as a joke...you may not...this was not the place for one. If you want to feel bigger by pushing me...feel free; just remember that I don't budge, and I do bite. Just watch out for yourself; you likely won't deserve what I do.

Lucky? Who'd you think you are Clint Eastwood?

Push you? I'm not trying to push you. Trust me, I don't need to feel any "bigger" by doing anything on here. How fitting that you use the term "boy" too....yes, I am a young guy, but I'm not the one who just haunts the boards, contributing mostly just insults and childish innuendo. So coming back to me telling you to "grow up", it would be stupid of you to try and intimidate me with whatever it is you'll "do". Because it's quite sad that a guy probably twice my age would even waste his time by trying to get at me on a internet forum. Very sad.